R7. Ranking of the Relative Risk of Specified Events Occurring

R7.1 The sample were asked to rank five possible events in order of their likelihood of occurring. Whilst interesting in its own right, the primary purpose behind the exercise was to understand the reasoning and perceptions upon which the final ranking is based.

R7.2 All, even the youngest, least able boys were able to perform the exercise and justify their final ranking. The final rankings were most usually as follows (most likely first):

Being injured or made ill at work (including minor injuries);
A smoker dying of a smoking-related illness;
Dying in a car accident;
Winning the National Lottery (Jackpot);
Dying of 'Mad Cow Disease';
Dying as a result of a nuclear accident.

R7.3 It should be noted that usually 'dying in a car accident' and a 'smoker dying of a smoking related illness' were initially placed above 'being injured or made ill at work' but invariably one or two people in the group would persuade the others that the latter was in fact most likely.

R7.4 The only other major difference across the groups was that Primary School teachers in this study reflected the more cynical 'green-orientation' we have noted in other studies by ranking 'Dying of Mad Cow Disease' and 'Dying as a result of a nuclear accident' above 'Winning the National Lottery'.

R7.5 'Being Injured or Made Ill at Work'

Being a less salient danger than car accidents and smoking, this event was initially ranked below them in terms of likelihood to occur. However after consideration, and when interpreted as 'any injury' it was invariably agreed that this should be promoted to the top position.

Most respondents, especially those from blue-collar backgrounds, knew at least one person who had been injured at work, which of course increased the risk's saliency, and all felt that if accidents such as falling down the office stairs or hurting one's back lifting a heavy box were included, this must be the highest risk.

Only the primary school teachers were aware of the advertising campaign relating to this risk. They referred to it spontaneously whereas the other groups did not recall it even after prompting.

R7.6 'A Smoker Dying of a Smoking Related Illness'

Although usually ranked second, a few groups placed this risk below 'dying in a car accident'.

Posters at school, health videos at school, TV documentaries, all stating the unpleasant facts about the effects of smoking, together with a general acceptance that smoking does damage your health were used to justify this ranking. A few respondents also had a relative or neighbour who had died as a result of smoking.

Whilst the majority of respondents claimed not to smoke, most of the older (14+) children had tried a cigarette out of curiosity. The younger ones also said they would like to try a cigarette - just to see what it is like.

Of those who had tried a cigarette, most recognised that one reason for them not continuing to smoke after the initial trial was that there was little peer pressure on them to do so. Few of their friends smoked so they felt quite happy to discontinue after their first, often unpleasant, few puffs. Should this situation change, some admitted they may well be tempted to try cigarettes out again.

Interestingly, many of the sports-mad teenage boys in the sample said they chose not to smoke not because of the long term risks involved but because it would probably affect their current performance on the field.

Those who did smoke regularly claimed not to think of the long term consequences. It all seemed too far off for them to worry about. There was, in their view, still plenty of time to give up before it did them any harm.

R7.7 'Dying in a Car Accident'

A number of respondents wanted to put this event above 'a smoker dying as a result of smoking' because "more people drive cars than smoke" and/or "you hear more about people dying in car accidents than you do of those dying from smoking". Whilst the first argument is a mistaken interpretation of the statement, the second reflects the role of publicity in affecting perceptions of risk and danger.

Many wanted to qualify the ranking by stipulating that it depends upon the individual's skill as a driver and the amount and type of driving you do. However, others argued that accidents can occur at any time and can easily be caused by other people on the road rather than by yourself. Bearing this in mind, the risk will always be greater than winning the Lottery, no matter how good a driver you are.

R7.8 'Winning the National Lottery (Jackpot)'

Although sometimes spontaneously put right at the bottom of the priority table, "you've no chance" - this event was quickly raised above 'dying from Mad Cow disease' and 'dying as a result of a nuclear accident' on the basis that somebody wins it every week.

Although the chances of winning are very low (someone stated 1 in 14 million) there is a definite chance, probably over 100 people each year become Lottery millionaires, more so in the future now it takes place twice a week.

When asked why people play, given the odds are so low, the students claimed that it is a bit of fun, excitement, something to hope for in an otherwise often rather boring world. The fact that you stand a "fairly good chance" of winning £10 also helps justify the gamble.

R7.9 'Dying of Mad Cow Disease'

This provoked considerable discussion in the groups, even among the younger, more able primary school children. The vast majority took the stance that in fact very few people have died from BSE, probably only 4 or 5, so the chances of catching it are very, very low - considerably less than winning the National Lottery.

However, in the secondary school groups one or two respondents in each group usually argued that since the disease has such a long incubation period - perhaps 15 years - we can't possibly know how many people will eventually die of the disease and hence we don't know what the real likelihood is. These tended to be the most intelligent, current affairs aware students in the group, although some were clearly repeating their parents' arguments rather than their own thoughts.

The primary school teachers had a similar point of view and argued it with more force and pessimism.

In terms of their own behaviour, the majority of respondents had now returned to eating beef after a relatively brief period at the height of the scare when their parents had stopped buying it. Whilst some, mainly the sporty boys, claimed to be happy to return to their burgers and steaks, others were still rather concerned, often finding it reassuring that their mother didn't buy British beef or only bought from Marks and Spencers! The fact that McDonalds has switched to Dutch beef also helped allay concern.

A minority had not returned to eating beef. Usually not overly keen on it any way, they (and their family) took the view that even if the risk is very small it is one they would rather not take.

R7.10 'Dying as a Result of a Nuclear Accident'

Nuclear accidents, usually interpreted as accidents at nuclear power stations, were far from salient in the students' minds. Even those in Bristol, living fairly close to such stations rarely, if ever, felt any concern about doing so.

When prompted, most were unaware of any deaths, in this country at least, as a result of a nuclear accident and tended to assume that so many safety measures are taken the likelihood of it occurring is very low.

Whilst the (science qualified) secondary school teachers also took this point of view, the primary school teachers tended to be far more sceptical. They referred to the pockets of leukaemia near Sellafield, the Chernobyl disaster and that no one really knew how many deaths can be attributed to nuclear leaks but that there are bound to be many more than we are told about. A general distrust of government and 'Big Business' was clearly apparent in this group.